Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[minkymurph]

and,

A real man knows who is head of the house…

and how to keep her happy:thumbsup:

Now if I wasn’t already married, I might ask what you’re doing tomorrow night!

Joking!

I would like to ask one thing. I don’t want to hijack the thread and would be happy to start another one if deemed more appropriate. I don’t believe, for reasons stated in previous posts, a woman can offer the Mass. Teaching infallibly is a different matter. I see no reason why a woman cannot teach infallible truth if God chooses to use her this way. There were women in the Bible, such as the daughters of Philip the Evangeliser, who prophecied, Anna was another. There are also other examples in the Bible of women who had a particular insight.

Now before anyone answers, I will NOT accept the arguement Jesus chose only men. If he did this, I will not accept it was the reason offered by fundamentalists, men should be in charge because they are somehow better suited to being in charge. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. At the risk of offending Protestants, give me a good Catholic arguement. Better still, maybe a Protestant who is not a fundamentalist could give me a good arguement. I’ve met some of those!

 

[mpartyka]

The only thing you know about me is what is posted on the internet. Not a good basis for making assumptions about someone’s marriage.

No, I know one other thing, too, and it has nothing to do with you or your husband or how the two of you choose to live out your marriage: I know the gender-based structure of authority in a marriage as it is explicitly defined in several passages of Scripture. It’s right there – black print on white paper (or black pixels on a white background) – and there’s no getting around it. When you enter into marriage, you enter into a contract that was drawn up by God, and you don’t get to change the language of the contract. You can certainly choose whether or not you will believe and/or live according to the terms of the contract, but the contract itself, and the distinctive rights and responsibilities it enjoins upon the parties involved, do not change according to the feeling, wants, and/or desires of the parties themselves.

Christ actually does in a sense makes us his equal in that he makes us like God; capable of divine love.

Sure, but he does not make us equal in the sense that we are ever lords over Him in the way that He is Lord over us.

That’s the thing about “equality” – equality in one sense does not mean equality in all senses. For example, there is equality of being, and there is equality of office, and the two do not always hold true together. Consider the relationship between two soldiers in an army – one a private, one a lieutenant. Are they equals or not? It depends on in what sense of “equality” you mean. They are both human beings, so, yes, they are equals when it comes to their innate worth as human beings. But because one holds a higher office than the other, they are not equals with regard to the authority they possess. And the same applies perfectly to the case of husband and wife. Are they equals? With regard to their innate worth as human beings before God, of course they are equals. All men and women are equals in this regard. But with regard to authority, husband and wife are not equals – the husband is head of the household. I would accept that how this inequality plays out in one household vs. another is fully up to the couple, but even if the couple choose to act as equals, they are not in fact equals. This is no different from a lieutenant’s agreeing to share duties and responsibilities with a private in such a way that they are “equal” for all appearances’ sake, but in fact the lieutenant possesses a higher authority than the private and always will.

Which is why I keep saying, “Young lady, if you don’t want to be a subordinate, don’t get married,” the same way I would tell anyone considering joining the army, “If you don’t want to be a subordinate, don’t enlist.” You can’t have it both ways. You can’t take the role and not accept all the rights and responsibilities that the role entails. (And I say the same thing to any man, too, who would seek to be a husband but is not willing to put the needs of his wife and children before himself.)

A real man is one who knows when to give his wife the wheel of the car.

Agreed, but a real wife is one who knows the wheel of the car is not hers to take, but her husband’s to give.

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

No, I know one other thing, too, and it has nothing to do with you or your husband or how the two of you choose to live out your marriage: I know the gender-based structure of authority in a marriage as it is explicitly defined in several passages of Scripture. It’s right there – black print on white paper (or black pixels on a white background) – and there’s no getting around it. When you enter into marriage, you enter into a contract that was drawn up by God, and you don’t get to change the language of the contract. You can certainly choose whether or not you will believe and/or live according to the terms of the contract, but the contract itself, and the distinctive rights and responsibilities it enjoins upon the parties involved, do not change according to the feeling, wants, and/or desires of the parties themselves.

Sure, but he does not make us equal in the sense that we are ever lords over Him in the way that He is Lord over us.

That’s the thing about “equality” – equality in one sense does not mean equality in all senses. For example, there is equality of being, and there is equality of office, and the two do not always hold true together. Consider the relationship between two soldiers in an army – one a private, one a lieutenant. Are they equals or not? It depends on in what sense of “equality” you mean. They are both human beings, so, yes, they are equals when it comes to their innate worth as human beings. But because one holds a higher office than the other, they are not equals with regard to the authority they possess. And the same applies perfectly to the case of husband and wife. Are they equals? With regard to their innate worth as human beings before God, of course they are equals. All men and women are equals in this regard. But with regard to authority, husband and wife are not equals – the husband is head of the household. I would accept that how this inequality plays out in one household vs. another is fully up to the couple, but even if the couple choose to act as equals, they are not in fact equals. This is no different from a lieutenant’s agreeing to share duties and responsibilities with a private in such a way that they are “equal” for all appearances’ sake, but in fact the lieutenant possesses a higher authority than the private and always will.

Which is why I keep saying, “Young lady, if you don’t want to be a subordinate, don’t get married,” the same way I would tell anyone considering joining the army, “If you don’t want to be a subordinate, don’t enlist.” You can’t have it both ways. You can’t take the role and not accept all the rights and responsibilities that the role entails. (And I say the same thing to any man, too, who would seek to be a husband but is not willing to put the needs of his wife and children before himself.)

Agreed, but a real wife is one who knows the wheel of the car is not hers to take, but her husband’s to give.

–Mike

Don’t agree.

 

[Major_Tom]

Look at it this way: A marriage is like a car. There’s only room for one driver…

Two cars in our household. We both get a wheel.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

If I may? My deacon has given me a very simple answer for this question: None of those that Jesus originally chose to spread his word (the apostles) were women, and therefore, out of tradition, none of the Priests are women.

Also, it has a lot to do with God. If you think about it, God chose the woman to be the nurturer of the family, whereas man was meant to be the protector, the teacher, the provider, and the disciplinarian of the family. It is a woman’s job to help with this, but the man, consequently, is the head of the household. This is also why God is a man. If God were a woman, the world would be in chaos, because he would be a nurturer, but would have no control over his children, because he didn’t have the aspects of a man.

Thus, when Jesus was born, he was not born a woman, but, as a spiritual father and leader, he was born a man: a man meant to lead his flock, discipline them, teach them, provide for them, and protect them. He was also the head of his flock, the head of his “household.”

Therefore, out of tradition, since God is not a woman, and Jesus is not a woman, none of the apostles were women, and no Priest is a woman.

An interesting proof of this can also be found in the creation story in the book of Genesis: God made man first. What do you do when you start a organisation of any kind? You build the foundation of that organisation by choosing who will do what, and what the chain of command will be. And who is the first person you appoint to the first job in this organisation? The leader; the person in charge. Therefore, God made man first, to lead. And, when God decided it was not good for man to be alone, that he needed assistance, he took Adam’s rib, and appointed Eve as his second-in-command: his wife.

Seeing as the first person to lead on God’s Earth was man, and not woman, naturally, a man would be the father of his family, and being the father, he would represent God and be the leader to those that he loves.

The Priest is a very busy individual. He sees his “flock,” or, rather, his parish, as his family, and he is a Father of that family. Therefore, concerning gender, a woman is not meant to take that place, because a woman cannot be a man.

This is also why Priests are celibate: they spend every waking hour thinking about, helping, and leading his parish family. In a sense, the Priest is the spiritual representative of our main authority, our heavenly Father. This is also why we call the Priest Father.

So, that’s my answer, and I hope that I have helped you. If not, if I were you, I would go to your local deacon or Priest and ask him.

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II said the Church has no authority to ordain women. This must be definitively held by all the faithful.

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

This is also why God is a man. If God were a woman, the world would be in chaos, because he would be a nurturer, but would have no control over his children, because he didn’t have the aspects of a man.

Sorry Tiffany but I’ve got to disagree. God is not human. Therefore, he is neither male nor female. Many believe the Holy Spirit, who is God, is the nuturer, the female dimension of God explained in human terms. The world is not in chaos because God is God, not because he is not a woman. We do refer to Father God, the first person of the Holy Trinity in the male sense. However, there is no ‘boss’ in the Holy Trinity. The Catholic Church teaches each of , and no I’m not a feminist theologian who has a problem with that. ‘It’ doesn’t seem to be appropriate.

The three persons of the Holy Trinity are equally God. The Church declared the teaching there was an order of authority in the Godhead to be heresy. That is why I believe there is an equalilty in the family, because it is an expression of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not subservient to one another. The relationship of the Holy Trinity is one of divine love, each equally giving and receiving to one another of each other. I believe the Church and the family to be expressions of the Holy Trinity. That is why I believe the family can function as a complete unit, because God is complete in Himself and each member gives equally to the other.

I think it is also a myth that men can control children better than women and a myth women are nurturers. Men and women both nuture children and both exercise authority. However, they do it in very different ways and God bestows different graces on men and women. I watched a really interesting programme about the contrasting parenting styles of men and women. In short, their contrasting parenting styles are both equally important to a child’s development, and both teach them important life skills.

As far as the Church goes, God gives those he chooses a leaders the grace to carry out their individual role in His plan of salvation. Preists are given authority not for others to be subservient to them, but by contrast,to be servant t others in the manner Christ was. ‘Authority’ and ‘servant’ denote in human terms, boss and worker, master and slave. They do not denote this in divine terms. Authority that comes from God is depended on the willingness to receive grace and acknowledgment that that authority is dependent upon grace and not gender. God either gives it or he doesn’t.

An interesting proof of this can also be found in the creation story in the book of Genesis: God made man first. What do you do when you start a organisation of any kind? You build the foundation of that organisation by choosing who will do what, and what the chain of command will be. And who is the first person you appoint to the first job in this organisation? The leader; the person in charge. Therefore, God made man first, to lead. And, when God decided it was not good for man to be alone, that he needed assistance, he took Adam’s rib, and appointed Eve as his second-in-command: his wife.

That’s assuming the author intended it to be taken this as a literal story. Lots of evidence exists the author did not intend this to be taken as a literal story.

We all play a part in the economy of salvation. I have no desire to be priest and am quite happy working toward my vocation of teaching. I have three lecturers who are priests, all of whom I have a good relationship with, all are approachable, and I am quite happy to receive guidance from them because of their knowledge, postion and the manner in which they give support and advice. What causes rancour is the manner in which authority is exercised. It is not necessary to believe others should be submissive to us in order to exercise our authority. Neither is it necessary to feel resentment toward those who have received what we have not.

 

[minkymurph]

Two cars in our household. We both get a wheel.

Like it.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

minkymurph,

I like your opinion, and I’m sorry if I offended you. I used to have the same opinion as you do. I’m just trying to understand my role as a woman in this world. I’m twenty-five, and I still don’t get it.

I have been trying to understand why men are priests and women are on a different level, therefore, this is the opinion I have chosen to take.

I understand that you are not a feminist, nor will I accuse you of being one. However, if you could give me a clue as to what a woman’s place in this world should be, I would be very happy, because it is very confusing to me.

Personally, I plan on taking up a career of a criminal profiler.

If you could possibly shed some light on a woman’s place in this world, I would be very happy, because Eve’s place in Adam’s house was to be the housewife. Clearly, times have changed, but I still don’t know where I stand in all of this.

What I wrote is mainly theory. I thought that I had it all down. However, I like your opinion on the matter. It’s actually rather refreshing.

 

[davidv]

minkymurph,

I like your opinion, and I’m sorry if I offended you. I used to have the same opinion as you do. I’m just trying to understand my role as a woman in this world. I’m twenty-five, and I still don’t get it.

I have been trying to understand why men are priests and women are on a different level, therefore, this is the opinion I have chosen to take.

Why do you think being a priest puts men at a different level?

I understand that you are not a feminist, nor will I accuse you of being one. However, if you could give me a clue as to what a woman’s place in this world should be, I would be very happy, because it is very confusing to me.

Personally, I plan on taking up a career of a criminal profiler.

If you could possibly shed some light on a woman’s place in this world, I would be very happy, because Eve’s place in Adam’s house was to be the housewife. Clearly, times have changed, but I still don’t know where I stand in all of this.

What I wrote is mainly theory. I thought that I had it all down. However, I like your opinion on the matter. It’s actually rather refreshing.

I would say a woman’s place in the world is the one God calls them to. Each of us has a role to play in God’s kingdom. For most of us that is to be spouse and parent. For others it is a chaste single life. For others it will be in the religious life.

As for jobs and careers, we are to develop our skills and talents to the best of our ability and use them to serve God and neighbor.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why do you think being a priest puts men at a different level?

I would say a woman’s place in the world is the one God calls them to. Each of us has a role to play in God’s kingdom. For most of us that is to be spouse and parent. For others it is a chaste single life. For others it will be in the religious life.

As for jobs and careers, we are to develop our skills and talents to the best of our ability and use them to serve God and neighbor.

That’s a good point, David. I think a lot of people today feel that a person is defined by the role he or she plays, whereas the whole person is much more.

After all, we are not ‘lesser’ people when we are children because we aren’t out there earning a salary.

We aren’t lesser’ people if we earn ‘less’ money than somebody else. We aren’t ‘lesser’ people if we can’t earn money at all. We’re people.

And our place is to know, love and serve God in order to be happy with Him in this world and the next.

Being happy with God in THIS world might involve, paradoxically, unhappiness–from the worldly view. Because serving God might mean opening oneself up to misunderstanding and even ridicule from the ‘worldly’ view’.

Just because today there are more ‘roles’ for women (and men too) to play doesn’t mean that they are no longer male and female, masculine and feminine, or that a woman who say from ages 25 to 65 is working in a traditionally ‘masculine’ role is automatically to be judged as a person in her entirety just by that role. Before she took it she was the same person she is now. After retirement even if she turns into a cookie-baking, at home ‘granny’, she is still the same person, not ‘less’ because she is no longer doing that ‘male’ job. (and yes, men who are out there as nurses and at home dads are not ‘lesser’ than men out there doing ‘manly’ roles as societally defined, nor do they get ‘more manly’ if they stop the ‘womanly’ roles).

 

[edwest2]

You obviously don’t understand the purpose of agitation or radical feminism. Even after the question is given a proper Catholic answer, it will be asked again, as if, obviously, the Church has missed something. It hasn’t.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Major_Tom]

You obviously don’t understand the purpose of agitation or radical feminism.

To some degree, bringing agitation and radical feminism into the argument is a straw man argument. There seems to be a natural tendency to want to break down complex arguments into either/or formulations. Are you liberal or conservative? Watch Fox or MSNBC? Did you vote for McCain or Obama? Feminist or traditional? My opinion on this particular issue overlaps with what a “feminist agenda”, yet I have other opinions that differ with what your average “radical feminist” would espouse.

(also, “feminism”, like so many other words, has many loaded connotations…)

Even after the question is given a proper Catholic answer, it will be asked again, as if, obviously, the Church has missed something. It hasn’t.
God bless,
Ed

From your point of view, absolutely correct. However, in formulating your ‘proper Catholic answer’, you may make assumptions that non-Catholics don’t concur with. Thus, we may disagree with your conclusion.

Personally, I think this is why so many conversations go awry on these boards. A Catholic poster may say “But I explained it already!”, and a non-Catholic poster may respond with the equivalent of “No you haven’t!” or “It doesn’t make sense”.

 

[curlycool89]

Personally, I think this is why so many conversations go awry on these boards. A Catholic poster may say “But I explained it already!”, and a non-Catholic poster may respond with the equivalent of “No you haven’t!” or “It doesn’t make sense”.

The only reason it “doesn’t make sense” is because they have not opened their mind to understand the answer.

 

[Major_Tom]

The only reason it “doesn’t make sense” is because they have not opened their mind to understand the answer.

See! That’s exactly what I mean!

I’m stifling the desire to retort with “maybe YOU are the one who hasn’t opened your mind to another point of view”, because I know that won’t lead us anywhere but the revolving hamster-wheel of futile discussions.

 

[davidv]

See! That’s exactly what I mean!

I’m stifling the desire to retort with “maybe YOU are the one who hasn’t opened your mind to another point of view”, because I know that won’t lead us anywhere but the revolving hamster-wheel of futile discussions.

It seems to me that you invited this response by commenting on the posters (see below) rather than the content of topic.
Major Tom:

Personally, I think this is why so many conversations go awry on these boards. A Catholic poster may say “But I explained it already!”, and a non-Catholic poster may respond with the equivalent of “No you haven’t!” or “It doesn’t make sense”.

 

[Major_Tom]

It seems to me that you invited this response by commenting on the posters (see below) rather than the content of topic.

If I’ve drifted off topic, or gotten too individualized in comments, fair enough. Thanks for the polite scoot back on topic. Didn’t mean to derail things…

However, I stand by the merits of the comment. I think that it’s a germane response to previous questions of “why people don’t understand us” or “why do they continue to ask this”. Some possible answers by previous posters seemed to be flirting along the lines of “they’re just close minded” or obstinate. My answer (I thought) was less confrontational and more direct: because we’re simply starting with different assumptions.

 

[edwest2]

To some degree, bringing agitation and radical feminism into the argument is a straw man argument. There seems to be a natural tendency to want to break down complex arguments into either/or formulations. Are you liberal or conservative? Watch Fox or MSNBC? Did you vote for McCain or Obama? Feminist or traditional? My opinion on this particular issue overlaps with what a “feminist agenda”, yet I have other opinions that differ with what your average “radical feminist” would espouse.

(also, “feminism”, like so many other words, has many loaded connotations…)

From your point of view, absolutely correct. However, in formulating your ‘proper Catholic answer’, you may make assumptions that non-Catholics don’t concur with. Thus, we may disagree with your conclusion.

Personally, I think this is why so many conversations go awry on these boards. A Catholic poster may say “But I explained it already!”, and a non-Catholic poster may respond with the equivalent of “No you haven’t!” or “It doesn’t make sense”.

So, if you’re given the answer either by getting a quote from a Pope or a link to a Church document, what more can be done? Pope John Paul II put it all in writing, the Church has no authority to do this. Sounds simple to me.

I think what I see too often is stuff like “Is it time for the Church to change something?” Time? What does that mean? A few years have passed and something needs to change?

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

I like your opinion, and I’m sorry if I offended you. I used to have the same opinion as you do. I’m just trying to understand my role as a woman in this world. I’m twenty-five, and I still don’t get it
I have been trying to understand why men are priests and women are on a different level, therefore, this is the opinion I have chosen to take.

You have not offended me at all Tiffany. :hug1: I am a very hard person to offend. I am certainly not offended by a sincere opinion, whether I agree with it or not, and I don’t get offended when people don’t agree with me. I like to think I’m a bit more mature than that.

We all try to understand our individual role, which God has given us in the economy of salvation. At different points of our lives, we understand our roles in different ways and according to where we are in life and the faith community we live. Never apologise for searching and grappling with understanding. We are contemplating the deep things of God which require grappling. We will come to many conclusion throughout our lives and if we are mature, perhaps never be convinced we have grasped the full meaning. I believe in this world we may never grasp the full meaning of our relationship with God, family members and other members of the body of Christ. That is why we struggle

I understand that you are not a feminist, nor will I accuse you of being one. However, if you could give me a clue as to what a woman’s place in this world should be, I would be very happy, because it is very confusing to me.

If I ever have a clue to the divine ideal of relationships, I will be happy to let everyone know. I you don’t know where your are, welcome to the club. :whacky: You are absolutely right. I am not a feminsist. I am not threatened by men at all. I am quite comfortable not being a priest, man and happy I am a child bearer. I am quite comfortable men are men, women are women, we have differnent God given roles. We struggle to grasp the divine ideal of relationships as it became distorted as a consequence of original sin.

Personally, I plan on taking up a career of a criminal profiler…

Good luck. I plan to become an RE teacher.

If you could possibly shed some light on a woman’s place in this world, I would be very happy, because Eve’s place in Adam’s house was to be the housewife. Clearly, times have changed, but I still don’t know where I stand in all of this.

What I wrote is mainly theory. I thought that I had it all down. However, I like your opinion on the matter. It’s actually rather refreshing.

What I wrote is also theory. It is based on opinions. They may be good opinions, but still opinions. I’m glad you feel refreshed. I too felt refreshed when I became Catholic and discovered a whole new way of reading the Bible and looking at relationships. Never be afraid of anything which challenges our thinking. It could be God’s way of leading us to a higher, deeper spiritual dimension. He works in mysterious ways! Thanks be to God I no longer look at life/faith in a black and white perspecitive. By no stretch of the imagination have I got everything sorted out, or can answer every question. Thanks be to God I no longer believe he expects me to.

I personally believe we will only fully understand relationships when we experience the ideal in our relationship with God. Then, we will understand what a fully fulfilling relationship with another means.

Keep searching, be comforatable with what you think, but never be closed to new ideas.

 

[Major_Tom]

So, if you’re given the answer either by getting a quote from a Pope or a link to a Church document, what more can be done? Pope John Paul II put it all in writing, the Church has no authority to do this. Sounds simple to me.

It is simple, if you, like all Catholics, place so much authority in the Pope and official church teaching. However, I’m simply stating the obvious in saying that non-Catholics don’t place that same weight in the Pope, the Magesterium, etc. SO posting those links, and reading those quotes, doesn’t necessarily end the conversation.

I think what I see too often is stuff like “Is it time for the Church to change something?” Time? What does that mean? A few years have passed and something needs to change?

God bless,
Ed

Of course the Church changes stuff! Not many masses are done in Latin anymore, right?